The reason you probably want YouTube subscriptions (even if you don't know it)
1. nb2six posted on 02 Feb 2013, 18:38 5 0
As soon as sports hit youtube, then its adios for the cable and satellite companies. I cut the cord two years ago but I still long to have to my sports channels back. I have NFL for my VZW phone which is nice during football season but thats one app in a see of many that barely gets the job done. The sooner the providers realize just how much money they can make off a ala carte model the better.
2. jroc74 posted on 02 Feb 2013, 19:00 2 0
Nice perspective, Michael. As always...you bring some thought provoking articles. I didn't really have an opinion about this. Will be interesting to see what they do.
3. faisolbauuz posted on 02 Feb 2013, 19:08 1 0
Nice finally i can watch premium channel on my phone laptop tv all in one package if this was true i will stop my home premium tv cable service
44. PhoneG33k posted on 04 Feb 2013, 15:20 0 0
I just hope channels like HBO, Showtime etc join in on this. All the shows, and I mean all of the shows I watch are on the premium channels like HBO, Showtime and Starz but in order for me to have those channels I have to pay for a higher tier plan to get them. (in order to get the premium package I have to pay for 200+ channels I dont want)
All I want is my 3 local channels and the premiums.
4. rihel_95 posted on 02 Feb 2013, 19:14 1 0
Atleast I can't pass out my nights without Vsauce or minutemadephysics or others out there if it happens.
9. MichaelHeller posted on 02 Feb 2013, 21:09 6 5
If the dude that makes numberphile (and a ton of other YouTube shows) makes a paid channel, I'd definitely support him.
18. rihel_95 posted on 03 Feb 2013, 07:54 0 0
Yeah, numberphile, scishow, 1veritasium, philinthecircle, quickerology, sixtysymbols and lot others are alos my fav.
5. jsdechavez posted on 02 Feb 2013, 19:27 0 1
They might charge for ALL HD content... *gasp!!!
6. pongkie posted on 02 Feb 2013, 20:12 4 1
what's next Googl€ license fees for android phones? People love YouTube because its free and we're fine with the adds, if we want paid subscriptions there's Netflix, Hulu.
7. idroidequis posted on 02 Feb 2013, 20:53 1 0
Google just wants a peice pf that pue. But really i dont see this taking off because yourtube is known for free content and thats what its gonna be known for. I remember when the first started placing ads in videos and it was really annoying. But the majority of users arent gonna want to pay for premium content because there is so much user uploaded content already there is no need. Im sure a few people will pay for it but once google realizes that its not doing so well they are gonna pull the plug.
8. MichaelHeller posted on 02 Feb 2013, 21:07 5 5
TV used to be free too. Would you rather we stayed with antenna TV than evolved to cable?
All I'm saying is that we can't know what will happen after YouTube introduces paid subscriptions. Sure, it could be that it works out badly. But, there's also the very real possibility that YouTube could become a legitimate competitor to cable in a way that Netflix is just starting to get into.
14. pongkie posted on 03 Feb 2013, 01:19 5 1
Well stop comparing YouTube to those Mainstream Hollywood Productions. Because before YouTube is bought by Google it was meant for anyone who wants to be broadcast him/her self to the public without the help of those big production companies. YouTube was meant to be free from the beginning unlike cable and Netflix it is for paid subscription from the start.
And now what they put those big production companies in? Next thing you know their lawyers will be on small YouTuber's because they are earning money. Then it's not YouTube anymore its HollyTube. It's better if google make a different site for that.
Stay on mobile Devices Michael!!!!
38. MichaelHeller posted on 04 Feb 2013, 11:25 2 1
First, I never mentioned mainstream Hollywood productions coming to YouTube. I mentioned the smaller cable channels that don't cut it on cable, and they are much closer to the indie production outfits you see on YouTube than on TV.
Second, YouTube is going to evolve, whether you like it or not. But, understanding the process could help you to give better feedback to Google and shape how that evolution occurs.
Change isn't inherently bad.
10. JunitoNH posted on 02 Feb 2013, 21:44 6 0
There is some truth and logic to your words. However, if you have been alive long enough. You must know, today it may be $1 or $5. Down the road, Disney may want a cut, Comcast, Universal etc. Before you know it, we are paying $49.99 and upwards. Do you remember when pay per view was started? Wrestling and boxing, $10, now you can't touch an event for lest than $39.99.
11. JunkCreek posted on 02 Feb 2013, 21:45 1 0
just like on adult sites, some contents are free and some contents are premium with some samples, of we want to watch, we must subscribe. the paid content may include video clip of songs, movies, cartoon/movies series/soap opera (episodes that not release on the tv yet with, may be, optional subtitles). and yes, they'll compete with the tv cable and netflix, but may be with a difference here and there and some common content of subscribed videos/movies site.
12. networkdood posted on 02 Feb 2013, 23:06 0 0
Frontrowsportsdoteu is a great site for most American sports, and I can think of a handful of sites where you can watch any episode of any cartoon or TV show. Series-craving is one such site. Plus, i can watch almost any current movie in the theater online. So, why pay for cable? They show so much crap, repeatedly, on different networks. TV should be where one can watch any episode of any TV show on demand. Current on demand goes back only a few weeks.
13. 1ceTr0n posted on 03 Feb 2013, 00:37 6 0
I aint paying for s**t, I got enough bills in my life
15. chezy posted on 03 Feb 2013, 02:51 4 0
Michael your perspective is only from a person from north america. what about the people like myself from other countries?
24. MichaelHeller posted on 03 Feb 2013, 16:06 1 5
Being American, it's nearly impossible for me to write from the perspective you want. Sorry.
All I know is that YouTube and streaming content is working very well in countries with high average internet speeds (Japan, Korea, Germany, etc). But other countries (like Jamaica where I am now) are much father off.
16. ogy_dogy posted on 03 Feb 2013, 03:09 0 0
The only and greatest reason im against this is that most of the world asade from uk, usa and canada would probably left out, just like we are with nexus devices...
25. MichaelHeller posted on 03 Feb 2013, 16:08 0 4
Left out for now, but technology propagates out to everyone eventually. We're slowly pushing towards a global market with the internet.
17. illiad posted on 03 Feb 2013, 05:25 3 0
the UK is also left out of many vids... get a great link, load it up, and...
"sorry this content is not available in your country" :( :(
so I have to search for one that some pirate has copied.... this will just happen *more* if they start charging...
19. cripton805 posted on 03 Feb 2013, 10:34 0 0
I dislike how this article primarily focuses on the idea that the subscriptions will be like premium channels on TV. You dont know that. Also, how you think that it will be limited. Once something takes off and most of the popular shows are blocked, you can probably guarantee the little channels will likely follow to blanket the service.
28. MichaelHeller posted on 03 Feb 2013, 16:18 0 4
Logically, it doesn't sense that something like this would become extremely prevalent with any but the biggest channels. As I said in the article, it's like news websites. Only the biggest can have a paywall and not lose all their subscribers
22. lolioslol (banned) posted on 03 Feb 2013, 13:39 2 1
What a terrible article. Can someone please explain to me WTF youtube has to do with cellphone news?
27. MichaelHeller posted on 03 Feb 2013, 16:12 2 4
YouTube is one of the most popular mobile apps in the world. Not to mention Google is working to make your mobile device the remote and playlist generator for YouTube on your TV
29. pongkie posted on 03 Feb 2013, 16:26 1 0
I don't think WP and Windows RT/8 users don't share that thought. Also I think your confusing yourself the difference between an app and the website itself.
31. Droiddoes posted on 03 Feb 2013, 17:48 3 0
39. MichaelHeller posted on 04 Feb 2013, 11:28 0 1
Ask any WP user what is the number one app they want on the platform and the answer will be either YouTube or Google Maps.
42. Droiddoes posted on 04 Feb 2013, 12:15 0 0
Fascinating, really. So now you're "reporting" on things you think should be available?
I guess it's better than one of your classic apple love letters.
46. MichaelHeller posted on 04 Feb 2013, 18:26 0 0
It's called an "editorial".
Everyone was reactionary when paid YouTube subscriptions were rumored. The point is to get people to stop and think about the topic and not just have a knee jerk reaction.
23. Bilpocalypse posted on 03 Feb 2013, 15:13 0 0
Nope. Still don't want them. I don't want cable tv either.
35. andynaija posted on 03 Feb 2013, 23:54 0 0
Why's everyone hating on Michael I thought y'all used to love him for his good articles?
36. pongkie posted on 04 Feb 2013, 01:32 1 0
It's not about hating Michael it's the paid subscription everyone do not like. Since Michael wrote this article he has to defend it.
If this payment system is applied to PA, let say all Michael's article needs a subscription of $1 a month without the adds on the side then he will loose a lot of readers. People will just go to other sites and the PA community we used to know will fall apart. And that same goes with YouTube.
40. MichaelHeller posted on 04 Feb 2013, 11:30 0 1
As I said, only the biggest content creators can go to a paywall system. That's why you only see it with the likes of the Wall Street Journal and NYT. You aren't going to see a paywall on PA, CNET, Engadget, etc, because it would kill too many views. The same will be true on YouTube, only the biggest channels will be able to successfully monetize from paid subscriptions.
45. pongkie posted on 04 Feb 2013, 18:22 0 0
You're contradicting yourself on your comment #38.
47. MichaelHeller posted on 04 Feb 2013, 19:00 0 0
I don't think so, because "the biggest" is relative. For news, the biggest means WSJ or NYT, but for YouTube, the biggest means Machinma and Jenna Marbles. Even if smaller cable channels move over to YouTube, we're still not talking about major content creators, those are still going to go with cable, Netflix, and Amazon first.
43. Droiddoes posted on 04 Feb 2013, 12:15 0 0
>good non biased or relevant articles
48. MichaelHeller posted on 04 Feb 2013, 19:02 1 0
Having an opinion doesn't mean bias. Not listening to others opinions is bias.
I see nothing irrelevant about this topic, and as I said before, it's mean to start a discussion (which it has succeeded in doing).
You don't have to agree with what I've said, but it helps if you have an opinion, rather than just trolling.
49. MichaelHeller posted on 05 Feb 2013, 10:58 0 0
Droiddoes, lolioslol, billybuttpounder, and opensourceftw are all coming from the same IP address, so it's all just one guy or one group that's trolling.
37. downphoenix posted on 04 Feb 2013, 11:13 0 0
the subscription model will turn out to be a disaster for individual channels. However, it may be a good way for TV networks to get some additional revenue off people that dont subscribe to premium cable/satellite packages, that may be interested in just a couple of channels they cant get and pay for them a la carte. As long as this subscription thing is left just to that (and for s**tty individual channels I would never want to hear from again like Ray William Johnson, Pewdiepie, etc.) then Im fine with that.